Doug: You made me smile on this one. Of course, the argument ought to be made that Gustavo Santaolallo OUGHT to be nominated whenever he's done something good, just as was Williams and a slew of other composers, many of whom never won anything or only one one award.
I do know many critics are calling for him to WIN for "Babel"...the San Francisco critics demand it, actually, saying it's the only deserving score in the pack...which just goes to prove how limited all intellects can be.
Hopefully, he won't win because he won last year. Not that "Babel" isn't worthy but because Oscar voters try to "spread the wealth" regardless of worthiness. It has certainly become a rare thing, IMO, for a worthy score to actually WIN the Oscar. I think both Howard Shore's score Oscars were worthy.
I very much approved of Corigliano's win for "The Red Violin."
I don't begrudge Portman her Oscar for "Emma", either.
I even think Menken deserved his Oscars for "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast." And he SHOULD have won for "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", too.
The trouble is in the music branch, itself, where the membership has reached the kind of "parity" the National Football League was striving to achieve. Many current members would have been classified as "hacks" by the majority in the music branch of the 1940s and 1950s. In terms of musicality, many of them are hacks by today's standards, too. Of course, the yield is mediocrity rising to the top. And Oscar voters are notoriously fond of mediocrity (how else can anyone account for "Crash"?)
|